New ex-Muslims tell their stories »« Good girls don’t

Comments

  1. Daniel Schealler says

    If Quinn’s one was intended to be a sad-reflection-on-the-inherent-misogyny-in-society artistic piece, I think I could get behind it.

    So I checked, just to make sure.

    And no.

    He is actually trying to sell suits with that image.

    The fuck?

  2. Ophelia Benson says

    I guess if you buy one of those suits you too will be able to drag a dead woman around by the neck. Kind of like the way if you buy Marlboros you too will be a handsome square-jawed cowboy looking out over the Pecos.

  3. Philip Legge says

    Duncan Quinn, turning his back on 10,000 years of civilisation and progress, seems to be demonstrating that he’s merely a slightly-better dressed caveman following the tired old trope of dragging women off to his cave. Or, since the photo apparently shows a corpse lying on the bonnet of a car, is this supposed to be a photo of the driver in the middle of removing the evidence of a hit-and-run/rape?

    Whatever it is, it’s yuck.

  4. llewelly says

    So, which of these pictures displays greater misogyny? Hard call, but I’m voting Quinn.

    Grotesque, both of them.

  5. Daniel Schealler says

    Actually, looking back, now that I’ve gotten over the initial shock?

    I think the first one is worse.

    The second one is at least honest.

    But perhaps more importantly – it doesn’t expect the woman in the picture to internalize her own subjugation.

    Duncan’s image is about dominating women’s bodies. It’s inherently entwined with physicality – the physicality of being dragged by an actual noose, the almost-naked body bent over backwards, the blood on the car, the wild tangled hair… Body, body, body.

    I don’t get the impression from Duncan’s image that the woman is expected to be a willing participant and eager participant in her own degradation. To the contrary. The whole point seems to me that she’s not willing. Which sets it apart from the first one.

    The first one is actually worse, in my view. It’s more subtle.

    The colors and palette are selected to be pretty but muted. There’s that word ‘muted’ again. It’s like someone took a full-color image and dialed back the contrast settings so everything is as washed out and pale as possible. No sensual bright colors, please!

    The woman is facing away from us. Ophelia has been noticing recently some imagery that covers the mouth of women – be it laundry or binoculars. But in this one the entire face is turned away. We can’t even see her eyes, let alone her mouth. (I’m suddenly reminded of the pictures of Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the covers of her books – the stern eyes leap out at you).

    Her hair is covered – the headscarf hides away all that intoxicating, dangerous, wild, feminine hair.

    The clothes are likewise baggy and hide any kind of feminine shape. No sexuality here.

    Of course, the woman is in a kitchen where she belongs. Wearing an apron too. She’s there to do work.

    Duncan image also celebrates the sexuality of women. Sure, it does it in a violent and misogynistic way possible. But the sexuality of female form is completely out there, on display. Hair, boobs, waist, thighs – everything’s right out there.

    But our ‘passionate’ housewife? Not a hint or a whiff of sexuality. Don’t want to go tempting the menfolk, or you might end up like one of the women in #2.

    They’re both bad. But I think that the first one is worse, simply because it is attempting to get women to internalize the message.

    Duncan’s is the more shocking and the more emotionally appalling – but its very honesty makes it less persuasive.

    Yeah, I’m feeling pretty settled.

    Barring some interesting criticism in the comments here, I’m confident in giving the first one my vote as the worst of the two.

  6. Daniel Schealler says

    Sorry, I forgot to leave out the contrast: The second image is body, body, body – all exposed and broken.

    The first image on the other hand covers everything up, hidden away. Not a hint of body, curve, or sexuality. But whole.

    The contrast between the two is eerily perfect.

  7. mordacious1 says

    Is Quinn trying to sell suits to serial killers? Would you like the “Double Breasted Bundy” or the “David Berkowitz Blazer”?

    He’s pretty warped.

  8. Daniel Schealler says

    Here’s a thought.

    Did David Quinn the person come up with this?

    Or was it some marketer working for the brand?

    Could be we’re maligning David Quinn himself without due cause.

  9. says

    I looked at the first image, and couldn’t help but wonder “what’s she doing in the kitchen? shouldn’t she have a life?”

    I looked at the second and immediately equated it to a BDSM picture, and enjoyed it in that sense. Clearly, my bias is showing.

    Then I read the rest of the comments, and realized that probably wasn’t the point. Btw Daniel, I’m really starting to like you. You do well with detail.

  10. badjim says

    I guess I’m the only one offended by the guy’s jacket. It would go well with a straw boater, I suppose.

  11. Midnight Rambler says

    I guess I’m the only one offended by the guy’s jacket. It would go well with a straw boater, I suppose.

    That was my thought too. From the look of the suit, the boobs, and the overall misogyny of it, I figured Ophelia dug this out as an example of something that was supposed to be “edgy” in 1968.

  12. Midnight Rambler says

    The woman is facing away from us. Ophelia has been noticing recently some imagery that covers the mouth of women – be it laundry or binoculars. But in this one the entire face is turned away. We can’t even see her eyes, let alone her mouth.

    Look again. It’s not just that we can’t see her face because she’s turned away – her head is not actually there. Her hijab tapers in the back so you would expect to see her hair and neck, but instead there’s sky. Very, very creepy.

  13. Bruce Gorton says

    Looking at that picture – I just realised. That is not a woman.

    At first I thought the arms were covered with some sort of long glove or maybe painted white for some reason. No, they used a fashion doll to represent their ideal of womanhood.

    Eish these people are creepy.

  14. Ophelia Benson says

    Ew, good point about the missing head. I hadn’t noticed that. The more you look at it the more horror-show it gets.

    Reminiscent of Psycho – don’t turn around, don’t turn around, don’t turn around…

  15. Daniel Schealler says

    Reminiscent of Psycho – don’t turn around, don’t turn around, don’t turn around…

    She turns around- AND HAS RUSH LIMBAUGH’S FACE!!!!!!!!

    AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>